20010227 TZHC Dar es Salaam

-CIVIL CAG2 HO. 161 OF 1998 STAMDIC .3.ANK (T/,.l.J'.C:,f;T:.:t) LT7.;o ••••••• PLAIN'l'IF? 1 lOZINA PAT0L ••••••••• I • • 0 •••••••• • 21'LJ DE:F'Zi·J:)AJJT HULIJ.TG In co:lrse of he,·,ring t::Jic clAi'.Tl the pl%1intiff b::ink summoned <'tic 1s1itn0Gs ~ -~fter tvbicli- it clos~~1 tb·eir c::i.se. Tho witness . ·/;"<r::tified on th0 gu.qrqnte0 purportec~ to b.qve baen executed by the :ti0:t'en6-=,nt's to sect.~re .::i. lo,:,n. ,,.0v::i,~c0d to A;::,:USRA PL.\NTJI:RS :\Od "T::ADJ~:7..:J LII.r;ITZiJo The ::foi:\~n:-:~::i.nt 1 c co•.rns(;)l. □ "'ls submitted th~-d; t.bere TruG to his own 01./,~·,mi1:, i,;;iot:', Hr. Rt:ieyongez.q produced 7:::eforo this court the ::!ecision .:;•f ti,in Court - Civil Apr>e~l (::-lig'i.1 D~r es s~lq~m. Court) No 21 of 1976 where his Lordship S~mq~t~, J -"¼She then w~s 9 elqbor.P.ted on t:1e pr::;,c0dure to be fcllMied ~)Y the court whare ~ sub~iasion of no c~s0 to 9nswer h~s ba0n m~~e~ hnd ~uo~er~ the triql court should ~scortqin if tho defen6~nt irit~nds to c.~11 1,1itness or .,ot. riis Lort~c':)ip st~ted in th'1.t c:;ise th~t • q defGndqnt who n~~0a ~ su~cission of no c~se to qnswer docs not by tbe court, unless he ~~s sp0cificqlly elected uot t0 cqll uttne3ses. l t•d.ll rev,~rt to this· subsequently.· l·fr~ Rweyongez.q in his suhmicsion h~ s s t-9 ted .·th::; t the pl~ it1 tiff 11 ::i.d to prove sever~ 1 m.~ tters 1 inc ludi.1g t1.1.q t t:::ie

principql debtor is li~ble in l~w to p~y, tbqt i3 his qctuqlly undebted~ He is of tbG new tbqt t':le pl<iintif':fr:: ~-1itrress hqs f:=i.iled tot":llly to s!Jow the princip:::i.l de~Jtor' s li:=ibility. Thqt ~ b:rnk st"'tsment t~bich C'lnform,:: to tbe provisions of section 77P 78 (1) qnd (2) qnd 79 ( 1) 9nd ( 2} o:f t:1.e L:;,:•1 cf' :.Ev:i.::iGncs- Act hqd to he _.produced in court And not ottierwise • , .. . . '~.· ' .i· ' - 2 to est"lblish :i.f ::i.t ~11 tl-:0re ic .,ny li:'lbility l=lg"linct tbe dc,fench-nt~ .qs gll::t:r'-'rntors, .qr1c~ thc:J ex.tent o:: ,uc.h liq"bility. T:::i_rtily he subilittc-ci thP.t t>0 g"u-"\:t'"lntee :~:=ts defective in tb.qt i t w=1s not executed ·;:.y 1'..'.ot:·., 1;-:u·t,es no1.• d::it-e:J. Counsel ~tt.;:i.ched tbG quthenticity o:f Zxbibit P1 w}:iich is II oopy of A.HJ.T3XTlJP..:S 381., Ag-::iin he :=tdded tb~t sq~e d.,currnnt the gu:,.;::&entee wqs uot stqmped ic t8rms 0f Section l;.6( 1) of ti.10 Stqmp Duty Act 20/1972. C ouns,.:il su~~:mi tted th:::i t on tl-o cvicicuce tendered 1 there is not.t: ing for the defend~nts to defend, th.::i. t were frqmec. for ti.10 Co~n'.'t c1e·,~0r:.1in.q tion. These .,re whetber the over dr.q:ft f'::id.lity expired on 1.5/1/1996 whetl:er the de:fend:=ir.ts offered unlimited Dire,,tors gu~rentee for the rep:-:iyment o:f .q lo.qn extended to Aruih~ pl~nters Limited wh~tber th(;, DL.'.'ecto:r.r:; 6-u::iren.tee

for tha rep.qymet!t of' .q lo.qn extended to Arus~q Plqnters Limited whether tbe ::nre:::toro g~i"1rcmt00 w:::ir_; m::ide in the perco~:ql c::ipqcities of: -;:;be c'u;)fet:dq_r,ts whqt reliefs ::ire the p"l:tties entitled to. M.w:=tnd,qmbo st.q tod th:::: t ::;ccording to PW1 lo:=rns ,qdv,qnced to the :princ:ip;:il debtor h.11.vo not been repaid A.nd nei th ;;,r h,qve th.0 gu~rentors responc1G:i to thair dem;:i,nd letters Exhibit P2., He opined thA.t inclebtness of th0 CompA.U'Y hqs been estqblished to the req_uireJ st::-i.nd:1.rd. And th;:it whiJ.e the def0nd:=tnt disputes th;:i,t f,qct, hqs no led evi6anc0 to contro~rert it. As to tbe prov~sions of -the Evidence Act cited by Counsel Nr,. MtOA.nd.<'lmbo submitted th.,t qs pqrties in this '3uit ~re not in dispute A.t A.11 .qbout .qny an.try in thG rlCcount of the Comp;:i.riy, tbe cited prcv:lsions .<'lre tb21re:fore irrelev~·rnt.;iirld more seriously, i t is not one of' the :fr.qme..:1 issues. ••00100•0/J 3 Counse 1 Mw::i.nC:;:ii:;;oo :fin-'l_lly submitted th::i t the pl.q in. tiffs h.: 1.ve, 0 th.rough the evidence of F:11 succeed0e: to eot.qblish, on b:=i l:=mc0 1 n. c::.i.se :c.igRinst the .:1E,f'end~H1ts_. In his rejoinder, Counsel Rweyongez::i. reiter::i.ted_hia e::i.rlier .strguments ::i.nd submitted th.Rt RS t~1e pl.<dntiff's h::i.ve not est:=i.blish their cl,=tim of TShs. 320,89h,275985 :1s being outst;;i.nd.ing, the

suit bo cismissed, L0t us go bnck to E-J1 evidence ::i.,1d rel,q te i t to the issues :::.a PW1 st,qted in Court th..q t the lo::-i.n T ,Shs • 250 million w::i.s ,qdv:=tnced to Arusb::i. Pl<rn.ters Li1:1i ted on 10;10/95. llfu:=i t it w~s to ex:pire on 15/1/96. PW1 stqte:-~ fu:;:-ther th;:i_ t the loqn wr1s secured through personnel gu;:,,rn.nt00a of' JqyA.nt PFttei ,qnd Rozin:=i. P;:i.tel who were Directors. PW1 reliod on ::i.nnexture SS2 - Exhibit P1. This ~.s the qu::i.rentee issued by t~1e c1efend·=mts. :ft is signed by both dcfendi=mts .qs well ;=i.s t7.10 !.):=-;t::k of:fici,qls. It is dc:1ted 1/10/95. Issue 1-To. 1 ~-1qs whetb.01~ the :'qcility expi::.~od on 15/1/96. This is wh.At PW1 st.::tted in evijGneeo As to qmcunt he witness stqt0d th-'l'b L.t5% c,qsh cover wqs pqid. Nr. J(,"',n::i.bqr who ,'1ppe::ired for tbe dcfend::i.nts did not Cross ex.::i.mine tbc witness on ,,11-v".t he teGtified in qs f::i.r ::i.s issue iJo. 1 WF1:J ccncerned. The 6u:,rqntoe. Zxt,ibit P1 which wqs C:;>,te;:-1 1/10/95 qppe:=irs to r::i.lly 1-ii th the GviC:ence given by PW1 thll t it W:=\S to 18.st . ::or 4 months only. The dGfc-nd;:i.nt br(s not chqllenged this evid0nce 1 n::i.mely th:.:it the guqrqnteo r•Jqs to expire ;)U 15/1/96 qs stqted by PW1 • Di'd the d0fen.::'.:.:u:1.ts offer unlimi te::1 directors guqrer. tee for :.:-op::i.ymont of the lo--u1 to I~rus:.1::i. r'1::>nters Limited.

Io.dee, in terms of Exhihi t P1 the de:f.:mci::-tnts did not stq te the :=tmount to be recovered AgP1in 9 the defendant h?.s submitted th~t Exhibit Pf is no't ,"3.uthentic bec:=n.iso it w:=::.s not d:=tte(i :::>r qnd tbqt i t w.::i.s not properly e.xecuteq., One m.qy ?..Sk who h"!r::; tb0 duty to see to i t th~t the C' document W:=is properly execu.tec1'? It c:=nrnot b0 the Bt!tnk :~J.one surely. 'I'he sisn.qtures h::i.vG not been disottn: .0:::, qnd tb:=tt 1 ;lltl omis$ion to insert ;:, :l::i.te c,qnnot in 1:-:y view be f',q"t,ql to the ::i.d-:nission of the document.. It 7:"i'-'l.Y ;:ie ,qn ir::iport:'ln t c!e:fect but one thr-r. t is ;:\ lso curqble • I think the defenc:i,qnts cugh.t not to use these :Lr:ree>:t,lAr:l.-ties so .-'\S to A.Void their due li.qbi.lities. ThG document; Exhibit P1 WA.S n f':=tr ;;is the pl,qintiffs were c:mcornod properly execut,1:,cl nt"..d tborefore i •· the GF'1me w,1s A.cted upon i.t. On issue three, n;:i.mely whether the directors guA.ren tee WA.s m::,ic]e in their person::t 1 cqpqci ties. Th.e evidence here is the guA.rentee itself Exhibit Pl. The defendA.nts A.gre~d be personA.l guA.r::i.ntors of the overdr-9.ft f.qc~lity extended to the CompA.ny., The defendA.n ts counsel h8.8 submitted th.qt the pV=lin ti:ffs m,rn t prove th;:i.t the principr-i.l debtor is A.ct-u:::i.lly indebted in order to :find the guA.rFtntors liP.ble. i'Tith. respect

I disFtgree. 'Th.A.t W:"\S not in issue A.t A.11. InfA.ct RS per PW1 evidence, li;:i.bility of the Comp.qny w:::i.s not ch;::illenged by the defence in ?.ny w::i.y. Exhibit P2 the dem;:i.nd letters produced in Court 1 .show thA. t the liA.bili ty · of the Comp,1ny is very much in existence, interesr· thereon. The credit f.qcili ty ;ipproved \~n.s T •. Shs. · 250 million toge th er with the interest thereono I :=i.m s.qtisf'ied th.qt such .q debt exist .qnd Exhibit P2 is one such proof'. In the finFll ever..t 1 thir;; Court rejects the pleF1 of no cF1se to .qnswer, Find enters judgment for the pVlinti:(f ,1s prrtyed for in the p1':'lint. The defen.c:::i.nts :=.ire condemned to pA.y costs. De,ivered bef'ore both coun~el. A.J. Bubeshi · JUDGE 27/02/2001